update_user_carry_forward

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the 'Set' action. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose idempotency, side effects (e.g., overwriting previous carry-forward), or impact on related data like allowances. Minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could include brief parameter constraints without harming conciseness. Still, it earns a high score for being efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on return value, error conditions, and behavior beyond a vague 'Set'. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanation for any of the three parameters. The amount range is mentioned (0-5000), but units, year format, and valid ranges for year and user_id are absent. Agents have no semantic guidance beyond parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (Set), resource (carry-forward amount), and target (user for a year). The range (0-5000) adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from potentially overlapping sibling tools like update_user_allowance, which might also involve carry-forward.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., user existence, valid year), and no context about the effect on existing values. Agents must infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.